Analysis:
This bill requires insurance companies to offer discounted rates for wind coverage for businesses and homes. This is not only a blatant violation of free-market/conservative principles, but is bad for the economy, bad for business, and ultimately bad for the consumer. Property owners must be responsible for the land that they own and the risk of environmental dangers to property is a risk that you take on when owning property. There is no compelling reason or unjust action here that warrants government intrusion. Insurance policies are contracts agreed to by two independent parties. In areas where wind damage is more likely to occur, insurance policies for wind damage will be more expensive; this makes sense in the free market and is to be expected. Legislation that sets prices for wind coverage policies de-incentivizes insurance companies from operating in the state which in turn lessens competition and drives up overall costs. The most efficient and fair exchange always comes when two parties bent on coming to a fair deal are on equal footing in a fair and free market. This bill inserts the government into the middle of an otherwise fair dealing between the insurance companies and the property owner, driving up costs for all and blatantly ignoring small government, free-market, conservative principles.

Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983; exempt certain records of Workers' Compensation Commission from definition of public records.

Alive

Analysis:
This bill exempts any records of the Mississippi Worker's Compensation Commission that include personal, private or identifying information of any person from the definition of "public records". Filing a workman's compensation claim should not subject someone to having their personal information included in the public record.

Analysis:
This bill requires insurance companies to provide coverage for any medically necessary treatments of infertility, including in-vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. Government mandates requiring private entities such as insurance companies to alter in any way the service they provide to their customers denigrates the legitimacy of the free-market and ultimately raises costs for the buyer and supplier of insurance policies.

Analysis:
This bill requires insurance companies to offer discounted rates for wind coverage for businesses and homes. This is not only a blatant violation of free-market/conservative principles, but is bad for the economy, bad for business, and ultimately bad for the consumer. Property owners must be responsible for the land that they own and the risk of environmental dangers to property is a risk that you take on when owning property. There is no compelling reason or unjust action here that warrants government intrusion. Insurance policies are contracts agreed to by two independent parties. In areas where wind damage is more likely to occur, insurance policies for wind damage will be more expensive; this makes sense in the free market and is to be expected. Legislation that sets prices for wind coverage policies de-incentivizes insurance companies from operating in the state which in turn lessens competition and drives up overall costs. The most efficient and fair exchange always comes when two parties bent on coming to a fair deal are on equal footing in a fair and free market. This bill inserts the government into the middle of an otherwise fair dealing between the insurance companies and the property owner, driving up costs for all and blatantly ignoring small government, free-market, conservative principles.